Water bond may be tapped for many uses

Shoring up levees, building reservoirs and purging pollution from the state’s bays and streams may have been what voters had in mind in November when they approved billions of dollars of borrowing for crucial water projects.

So it may come as a surprise that some of the debt they authorized could be headed toward a bike path through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, or “water-accessible overnight accommodations” on Lake Tahoe. Or a museum in Los Angeles. Even an aquarium 100 miles from the sea in Fresno.

Proposition 84 was a $5.3-billion bond measure that the official voter guide said would provide borrowing for “Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements.” Less visible was the fine print that allowed state officials to authorize millions of dollars in spending with limited constraints.

Lawmakers are now debating how to allocate the pot of money generated by the measure. Some are proposing bills to finance projects that may please constituents or, in some cases, campaign contributors.

Though most of the projects serve a public purpose, they also would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the state’s indebtedness. And for every $1 million spent, taxpayers fork out nearly an additional $1 million in interest over 30 years.

“This was supposed to be about strengthening the levees and water safety issues. That was the context under which people voted for it,” said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley. “If we really wanted a museum and aquarium bond, voters could have considered that. But that is something that may not have been approved, considering the state’s current economic situation.”

Voters are usually asked to pass bond issues for huge public-works projects too costly to be absorbed in the state budget. But promoters of bond initiatives often tuck in provisions that allow spending for unrelated projects.

Joe Caves, the Sacramento lobbyist who wrote Proposition 84, said promoters were not being devious by including spending for aquariums, museum construction and other such things. He said those programs made the proposal more attractive to voters.

“An initiative has to address a range of issues that appeal to a range of voters out there,” he said. “Otherwise it doesn’t have broad-based support.”

Lew Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee, says he doubts that voters had any idea the money was going anywhere but big water projects.

“I think the people have been hoodwinked,” he said.

It is up to state environmental and parks agencies to parcel out most of the bond money. But lawmakers have been working to ensure that certain organizations get a share.

Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Los Angeles) drafted a bill that would give the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the Huntington Botanical Gardens -- two projects supported by the senator -- an edge in grant applications. Those institutions could use bond money to fund construction and exhibits.

Ridley-Thomas said he believes that voters were “quite conscious” that millions of dollars would “be aimed at these sort of projects” when they approved the borrowing in November.

“Culture is important,” he said. “Why do we have to view this as levees versus parks? In a state such as California you can have both.... This is an investment in our future.”

Central Valley lawmakers demanded that a Fresno aquarium project also have a shot at the funds. Promotional material for the aquarium says it will be a world-class facility off California 99. Featuring a 2-million-gallon “oceanarium” filled with spotted eagle rays and hammerhead sharks, among other marine life, it would re-create the “ancient saltwater sea that once covered the San Joaquin Valley.”

Biologists would raise marine fish and coral at the aquarium, and visitors could stroll through a rooftop garden with a panoramic view of the San Joaquin River.

Ground has been broken for construction, but millions of dollars are needed to construct all the buildings supporters envision. Ridley-Thomas amended his bill to include the aquarium, and backers of the project are confident they will get $5 million.

“People say, ‘An aquarium in Fresno?’ ” said Tom Lang, executive director of the project. “But ... we have to have these things closer to where people live. People can’t be driving 100 miles to get to them. That adds to our state’s pollution problems.”

Other lawmakers besides Ridley-Thomas have drafted bills that would guarantee cash for their pet projects.

Assembly members Ted Gaines (R-Roseville) and Lois Wolk (D-Davis) propose using bond money to establish a “Lake Tahoe water trail to link access to the waters of Lake Tahoe that are available for navigation by human-powered boats and beachable sail craft, and provide for diverse water-accessible overnight accommodations.”

The idea, being promoted by tour companies, environmentalists and paddling enthusiasts, is to create a network of boater-friendly facilities around the lake’s 72-mile shoreline to draw kayakers, canoeists and sailors.

Another proposal, by Sen. Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch), an avid cyclist, would fund “The Great California Delta Trail,” a network of biking and hiking trails “that would extend around the delta and would link the San Francisco Bay Trail system to the planned Sacramento River trails.”

A staff analysis of the delta trail idea by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water questioned whether “planning for a recreation corridor” is an appropriate use of water bond funds. The committee approved the bill nevertheless.

Some groups may not need a backer in the Legislature, because language in the proposition appears to carve out money for them. Many of those organizations played a big role in financing the campaign to get the measure passed.

Among them is the Big Sur Land Trust, one of several modest-size nonprofits that spent $100,000 or more on the Proposition 84 campaign. Executive Director Bill Leahy called the contribution an “investment.” He believes that his group will get $10 million to $15 million in bond proceeds to purchase land.

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, another $100,000 donor, is now raising money to build an 88,000-square-foot museum in Palm Springs. The bond proposal sets aside $100 million for some types of educational institutions, including those focusing on “the relationship of Native American cultures to the environment.”

evan.halper@latimes.com